United States v. Hines

381 F. App'x 313

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8254

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER REGINALD HINES,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00218-GCM-2; 3:07-cv-00361-GCM)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Reginald Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Christopher Reginald Hines seeks to appeal the

district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2009) motion and denying his motions for

reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Hines has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal. We also deny Hines’ request for bail. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2 adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED